It's possible that a recent analysis of the subliminal structures contained within their speeches provides a clue.
Let's face it Hillary is not exactly winning the hearts of America. Although it started slowly, the tide against her has been gathering momentum and now seriously threatens her chances of gaining the Democratic nomination. The views of many high profile opinion formers are quick the decline of her campaign. Their observations do not make pleasant reading but do capture the growing mood of the country.
“Hillary, as everyone knows, has shown scant appeal and is close to the most over-exposed candidate in history.” Roger Simon, Academy Award Winner
“Hillary was a media darling a few months ago, before being deemed profoundly “unlikable” or “untrustworthy. Hillary is probably very annoyed that, although she has paid her dues, a much more charismatic candidate is threatening her for the top spot. Although Obama is a lot less experienced than Hillary, voters are willing to focus more on his likeability factor.” Gary Stewart, CEO GOA.
So what is it exactly that people find so unappealing about Hillary and so likeable about Obama?
Analysis of her speeches suggests that there might be a clue in the way she delivers her messages. It may be not what she says but how she says it. Although this may seem to be a small detail there is scientific evidence to suggest that this one difference between the two candidates has created this tipping point.
Albert Mehrabian, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, UCLA and author of, Silent Messages, conducted the only serious scientific study of verbal and nonverbal communication. His findings on feelings and attitudes prompted by communication have been quoted worldwide, and have become known as the7%-38%-55% Rule. Mehrabian's research in 1971 reached the conclusion that the three elements to human communication are:
Content - which accounts for 7% of communication.
Tone of voice - which accounts for 38% of communication.
Subliminal structure - which accounts for 55%of communication.
Could it be that Hillary's problems are based on the subliminal messages given out by her speeches? And if so, could she change her speeches and win back the great American public? A linguistic analysis of her speeches has been compared to those given on the same topic by Obama. And the results clearly show that Obama's speeches are more charismatic.
Extra Sensory Perception, a communication consultancy based in the UK undertook the research using bespoke linguistic analysis software. This software analyses the subliminal structure of communication in a way that it can be measured and compared against others. This type of linguistic analysis is typically reserved to market blue chip companies, specifically to measure the effect of subliminal messaging on their Brand, Products and Services.
ESP's findings suggest that Obama is13% more engaging, 9% more persuasive and crucially 33% more engaging. In fact he was a clear winner in three of the four key measurements. Glyn Parry a director at ESP explained, “It's not that Hillary is breaking the 7% - 38% - 55% rule, it's just that Obama uses the 55% so much more effectively. Actually it's his speech writers that use it more effectively and the words happen to be coming out of his mouth. The difference between the two candidates was evident in June 07 when we undertook the analysis. I'm just surprised it's taken this long to have an effect.”
See full details of the analysis. To get her campaign back on track Hillary might be well advised to take note.
